Mirror, Mirror: An Exploratory Study of Students’ Perceptions of Attractiveness Natalie Zimmerman Psychology University of Montevallo

Introduction Attractiveness is defined as having the power to attract and also being pleasing to the eye or mind. Individual, social, and cultural factors strongly influence these patterns, such as norms, values, status, occupational, marital, religious, or ethnic considerations1 .Attractiveness is studied to improve self-esteem, improve body image, to find potential dates, to find potential marriage partners, for marketing and advertising, for mate selection, and to enhance reproductive success and viability. Several components are taken into consideration when defining attractiveness such as averageness, symmetry, sexual dimorphisms, good grooming, pleasant expression, youthfulness, companionship, mate selection, similarity, social intimacy, and a warm personality. Averageness is when a face is low in distinctiveness. Sexual dimorphisms are how masculine or feminine a face looks, for example, males having a square jaw and thick brows and females having high cheekbones and fuller lips. These are all components that are taken into consideration when defining attractiveness Whether you realize it or not, attractiveness affects your everyday life. Everyone is attracted to someone. Everyone is also affected by attractiveness and how it relates individually to everyone and everything. Literature Review A review of the literature suggests that there are many factors and correlations between variables that account for physical attractiveness in college students. There are several different components to consider when thinking and evaluating attractiveness such as: what are the qualities to being attractive; the influences of media on attractiveness; and the effect of selfesteem on who you are attracted to and who is attracted to you. According to researchers, there are several components that contribute to attractiveness including averageness, symmetry, sexual dimorphism, good grooming, a pleasant expression, youthfulness, and, for known faces, reflections of nonphysical characteristics, such as how much one likes the person 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Danel and Pawlowski7 also put great emphasis on sexual dimorphic traits such as masculine/feminine characteristics. Several other aspects including companionship, mate selection, reciprocity, recreation, romantic relations, sexual activity, similarity, social intimacy, social skills, and a warm personality also led to factors that make people more physically attractive 1,8. Researchers agree that attractiveness is based partly on physiological activity in the brain. Attractive faces and people activate the reward centers in the brain and also motivate sexual behavior 2, 8, 9, 10, 11. Another factor involves hormones that are released in the brain when you are attracted to someone 12, 13. Attractiveness can bring rise to several emotions but pleasure must always be one11. Sexual behavior utilizes positive feedback by enhancing motivation. There have been several developmental research studies suggesting that infants prefer an attractive face over an unattractive face. This preference could be an innate quality that everyone is born with or that has been learned very early in life 9, 14, 11. Researchers have found that not only adults but also infants gaze in the direction of something or someone that they find interesting 15, 13, 11, 6. Toates8 suggests that people are not simply passive until triggered by external incentives such as having someone attractive to look at. Developmental studies have shown that not only adults but also infants prefer to look at more attractive faces because they are more highly motivating and interesting to gaze at. Media is also an influencing component that affects how we feel about our own body images, who we should be attracted to, and also is a model of how we think others and ourselves

should appear. People often compare themselves with others in their daily lives therefore we have a tendency to make comparisons with the people we see in magazines, in commercials and in television/movies 16, 17, 18,19. Because media presents the ideal woman as having a thin body, adoption of this reality may lead to a decrease in a woman’s body satisfaction 20. Generally more research has been conducted on how media affects women’s view on self esteem, body image and attractiveness but men are also reasonably just as concerned. Though women are usually more concerned with body fat, men are concerned about body fat and their level of muscularity 21 22 23 24 25 , , , , . The exposure to media images of lean muscular men may be contributing and causing some men to feel depressed, dissatisfied, and unable to achieve a muscular ideal 26. Media has a powerful influence on not only females’ but also males’ perceptions of a false reality of body image and satisfaction. Ideal media figures can lead to dissatisfaction and negative feelings towards one’s own body image. Discontent with one’s body image can lead to anorexia, bulimia, obsessive dieting or exercising, and depression. How attractive you feel and your self-esteem are closely related to how and who you are attracted to. Researchers 27, 8, 28, 29, 24 suggest that attractive people date other attractive people. Whether you are an attractive person who is attracted to another attractive person, or you have the same similarities, the common phrase that “likes attract likes” is proven to be true. Methodology In a small liberal arts university, the University of Montevallo, a convenience sample of students attending classes in May Term and Summer I was taken. Students in the study were taking courses at the introduction level to upper level courses. Participants were from first year through graduate level. Students were asked to complete a 33 item survey on attractiveness and their attitudes of the affect of attractiveness in their lives. A total of 120 participants completed the survey. Thirty one males from ages 18-39 and 89 females ages 17-55 participated. The wide variety of students with differing age, height, weight, sexual orientation and class standings were a good indicator as a representation of the entire school’s population. Married students made up 13 percent of participants. The data was analyzed in several Excel spreadsheets to determine if there was a significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The independent variables were questions based on relationships, characteristics, selfesteem, and media. Relationship questions asked to what extent does your job, friends, mother, father, siblings, and spouse (if applicable) support your view of yourself as attractive (questions 61-66). Characteristic questions dealt with how important different measures are for maintaining attractiveness (questions 23-32). Self-esteem questions asked when you look in the mirror, does it affect your mood and do you think about how others evaluate your looks and does that affect your mood? (questions 46-48). Media questions asked how often does media play a role in your life (questions 85-88). The dependent variable focused on how a person feels about their overall personal attractiveness. Questions for the dependent variable asked how satisfied are you about overall facial attractiveness, general muscle tone, body weight, overall appearance dressed and undressed (questions 41-45). Four different hypotheses were formulated to find the outcome of a person’s overall attractiveness. The relationship hypothesis states that attractiveness is not important when it comes to friends, family, and job. The characteristic hypothesis states that maintaining attractiveness by means of different measures is important. The self-esteem hypothesis states that maintaining a positive self-esteem affects personal attractiveness. Finally, the media hypothesis states that media plays a role in evaluating our own personal attractiveness. Each hypothesis relates to each of the four components and their relating questions.

Results The relationship questions 61-66 showed that there was not a significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable as shown in Table 1. This means that our perceptions do not seem to affect our relationships with others around us. The characteristic questions 23-32 showed that there was not a significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable as shown in Table 2. This means that our perceptions do not seem to affect measures of characteristics that we have for ourselves. The self-esteem questions 46-48 showed that there was a marginally significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable as shown in Table 3. This means that our perceptions do seem to affect our self-esteem. The media questions 85-88 showed that there was a strong significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable as shown in Table 4. Most of the significance came from question 86. This means that our perceptions do seem to be influenced by media. Findings indicate that there seems to be a strong significance between media and overall self attractiveness. There also seems to be a marginally significance between self-esteem and overall self attractiveness. Discussion Marketing and advertising can learn that showing unrealistic men and women in commercials and magazines will not sell as much as marketing realistic figures that people can identify with, to promote healthy attractiveness. By learning that the models that we see in media are not good representations of “normal” body weight and height, individuals can be happier with their bodies. Should I have an opportunity to continue my research, it would be interesting to show pictures of different body images to participants. A larger pool of participants should also be surveyed. Limitations A convenience sample of college students attending courses at the University of Montevallo during May and Summer 1 term was taken. Access to participants was by permission of the faculty instructor. It is possible that the participants in the study who take classes in May and Summer 1 may not fully reflect the University of Montevallo student population. It is also possible that faculty who agreed to allow class time for surveying may have influenced the participant pool and survey outcomes. The survey also relied heavily upon self-report by the participants. Given the content of the questionnaire, self-reporting could have affected subjects’ truthfulness in reporting accurately. The male population at the University of Montevallo was limited during the May and Summer 1 terms. The University of Montevallo male to female ratio is 40 to 60; male representation in the survey was close to 30%. Since the University of Montevallo only has about 3,000 students and only 120 students participated in the survey, the validity and reliability of the survey should be tested on a larger population.

Table 1 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.175753 R Square 0.030889 Adjusted R -0.0144 Square Standard Error 4.447283 Observations 113 ANOVA df

SS

MS

Regression Residual Total

5 107 112

67.45348 2116.281 2183.735

13.4907 19.77833

Intercept Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q66

Coefficients Standard Error 12.97278 1.551978 0.370816 0.403309 -0.07844 0.402254 -0.21824 0.36785 0.442168 0.372689 -0.53569 0.396562

F

Significance F 0.682095 0.63797

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

8.358873 0.919435 -0.195 -0.59328 1.186427 -1.35083

2.54E-13 0.359936 0.845759 0.554248 0.238081 0.179599

9.89617 -0.4287 -0.87586 -0.94746 -0.29664 -1.32183

MS

F

Table 2 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.242504 R Square 0.058808 Adjusted R -0.02834 Square Standard Error 4.441041 Observations 119 ANOVA

Regression

df

SS

10

133.0925

Significance F 13.30925 0.674814 0.745597

Upper 95% 16.0494 1.170329 0.718979 0.510983 1.180981 0.25045

Lower 95.0% 9.89617 -0.4287 -0.87586 -0.94746 -0.29664 -1.32183

Upper 95.0% 16.0494 1.170329 0.718979 0.510983 1.180981 0.25045

Residual Total

108 118

2130.067 2263.16

Intercept Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32

Coefficients Standard Error 10.22342 3.517714 0.174108 0.565316 0.899462 0.515693 -0.26422 0.560025 0.144302 0.40361 -0.14952 0.395949 0.012364 0.51898 0.000374 0.547968 0.455805 0.458528 -0.56192 0.463168 0.32966 0.653881

19.72284

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

2.906267 0.307984 1.744182 -0.4718 0.357529 -0.37762 0.023824 0.000683 0.994061 -1.2132 0.504158

0.004439 0.758688 0.083973 0.638024 0.721394 0.706452 0.981037 0.999457 0.322415 0.2277 0.615177

3.250697 -0.94645 -0.12273 -1.37428 -0.65572 -0.93436 -1.01634 -1.08579 -0.45308 -1.48 -0.96645

F

Upper 95% 17.19614 1.294664 1.921654 0.845849 0.944328 0.63532 1.041072 1.086541 1.364688 0.356164 1.625766

Lower 95.0% 3.250697 -0.94645 -0.12273 -1.37428 -0.65572 -0.93436 -1.01634 -1.08579 -0.45308 -1.48 -0.96645

Upper 95.0% 17.19614 1.294664 1.921654 0.845849 0.944328 0.63532 1.041072 1.086541 1.364688 0.356164 1.625766

Upper 95% 19.50856 0.425087 1.302724 0.555635

Lower 95.0% 13.42108 -1.60279 -1.05012 -1.659

Upper 95.0% 19.50856 0.425087 1.302724 0.555635

Table 3 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.211941 R Square 0.044919 Adjusted R 0.020218 Square Standard Error 4.317462 Observations 120 ANOVA df

SS

MS

Regression Residual Total

3 116 119

101.6958 2162.296 2263.992

33.8986 18.64048

Intercept Q46 Q47 Q48

Coefficients Standard Error 16.46482 1.536756 -0.58885 0.511929 0.126301 0.593965 -0.55168 0.559075

Significance F 1.818548 0.147634

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

10.71401 -1.15026 0.212641 -0.98678

4.88E-19 0.252402 0.83198 0.325805

13.42108 -1.60279 -1.05012 -1.659

Table 4 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.38459 R Square 0.14791 Adjusted R 0.118272 Square Standard Error 4.09573 Observations 120 ANOVA df

SS

Regression Residual Total

4 115 119

334.8663 1929.125 2263.992

Intercept Q85 Q86 Q87 Q88

Coefficients Standard Error 15.00219 1.569548 0.461588 0.512567 1.30229 0.568955 -0.2009 0.541982 -1.95703 0.460632

MS

F

Significance F 83.71659 4.990556 0.000957 16.775

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

9.55829 0.900543 2.288917 -0.37067 -4.24858

2.77E-16 0.369713 0.02391 0.711563 4.39E-05

11.89322 -0.55371 0.1753 -1.27446 -2.86945

Upper 95% 18.11116 1.476885 2.429279 0.872664 -1.04461

Lower 95.0% 11.89322 -0.55371 0.1753 -1.27446 -2.86945

Upper 95.0% 18.11116 1.476885 2.429279 0.872664 -1.04461

Endnotes 1

Peretti, P. and R. Abplanalp. 2004. Chemistry in the college dating process: structure and function. Social Behavior and Personality 32, 147-154.

2

Rhodes, G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 199226.

3

Rennels, J., Bronstad, M., and J. Langlois. 2008. Are attractive men’s faces masculine or feminine? The importance of type of facial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology 43, 884-893.

4

Langlois, J., Roggman, L., and L. Reiser-Danner. 1990. Infants’ differential social responses to attractive and unattractive faces. Developmental Psychology 26, 153-159.

5

Grammer, K. and R. Thornhill. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108, 233-242.

6

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest; the science of beauty. New York: Doubleday.

7

Danel, D. and B. Pawlowski. 2002. Eye-mouth-eye angle as a good indicator of face masculinization, asymmetry, and attractiveness (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology 121, 221-225.

8

Feingold, A. 1990. Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: a comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 981-993.

9

Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C., O’Connor, E., and H. Breiter. 2001. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 32, 587-551.

10

O’Doherty, J., Winston, J., Critchley, H., Perrett, D., Burt, D., and R. Dolan. 2003. Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontral cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia 41, 147-155.

11

Cloutier J., Heatherton, T., Whalen, P., and W. Kelley. 2008. Are attractive people rewarding? Sex differences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20, 941-951.

12

Young, L., Zeki S., and A. Bartels. 2004. I get a kick out of you. Economist 370, 73-75.

13

Toates, F. 2009. An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. Journal of Sex Research 46, 168-193.

14

Hatfield, E. and R. Raspon. 2009. The power of prejudice. 100,000 Years of Beauty 110, 7477.

15

Mason, M., E. Tatkow, and C. Macrae. 2005. The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science 16, 236-239.

16

Tsai, C. and C. Chang. 2007. The effect of physical attractiveness of models on advertising effectiveness for male and female adolescents. Adolescence 42, 827-836.

17

Richins, M. 1991. Social Comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 71-83.

18

Martin, M. and P. Kennedy. 1993. Advertising and social comparison: consequences for female preadolescents and adolescents. Psychology & Marketing 10, 513-530.

19

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of comparison processes. Human Relations 7, 117-140.

20

Grabe, S., Ward, L., and J. Hyde. 2008. The role of the media in body image concerns among women: a meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin 134, 460-476.

21

Farquhar, J. and L. Wasylkiw. 2007. Media images of men: trends and consequences of body conceptualization. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 8, 145-160.

22

Agliata, D. and S. Tantleff-Dunn. 2004. The impact of media exposure on males’ body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23, 7-22.

23

Leit, R., Gray, J., and H. Pope. 2002. The media’s representation of the ideal male body: a cause for muscle dysmorphia? Int J Eat Discord 31, 334-338.

24

Vartanian, L., Giant, C., and R. Passino. 2001. “Ally McBeal vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger”: comparing mass media, interpersonal feedback and gender as predictors of satisfaction with body thinness and muscularity. Social Behavior and Personality 29, 711-724.

25

Olivardia, R., Pope, H., Borowiecki, J., and G. Cohane. 2004. Biceps and body image: the relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 5, 112-120.

26

Allensworth-Davies, D. and S. Welles. 2008. Body image, body satisfaction, and unsafe anal intercourse among men who have sex with men. Journal of Sex Research 45, 49-56.

27

Lee, L., G. Loewenstein, D. Ariely, J. Hong, and J. Young. 2008. If I’m not hot, are you hot or not?. Psychological Science 19, 669-677.

28

Buston, P. and S. Emlen. 2003. Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 88-05-8810.

29

Little, A., Burt, D., Penton-Voak, I., and D. Perrett. 2001. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 268, 39-44.